No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Report of the Editors of the American PoliticalScience Review, 2007–2008
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 April 2009
Extract
This report was the first to be prepared by the UCLA-based team ofco-editors that took over leadership of the Reviewin July 2007 from Lee Sigelman, who had edited it for the previoussix years. Here we report on the journal's operations during theyear from July 1, 2007, to June 30, 2008, including both decisionsmade during the early months by Lee, as he closed up shop, and thosemade by the new team. Because revisions often take authors manymonths to complete, the time span between original submission andfinal acceptance of an article can be long. As a result, the issuesof the journal published between mid-2007 and mid-2008 owe at leastas much to Lee as they do to us—indeed, of the articles acceptedduring those 12 months, 83% either had been accepted by Lee or cameto us as revised versions of papers he had initially handled, almostall of which we accepted. So our first task is to acknowledge theextremely important contribution Lee made to the publication in thistransitional year, even as he was beginning a well-deserved rest. Weare grateful to Lee for all his help, and our respect for hismanagement skills only increases with time.
- Type
- Association News
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The American Political Science Association 2009
References
NOTES
1 Submission statistics for the year 2006\N07 were generated for Tables 1 and 3 at UCLA some months after editorial offices were closed at George Washington University and using the APSR's transferred database. They cover only 10.5 months, due to a change in annual reporting periods (now July 1 through June 30). Annualized submission statistics for that same year would equal 707 and 621 for “total” and “new,” respectively. Thanks go to UCLA political science graduate student Rebekah Sterling for the additional database research and compilations.
2 The annual report for 2008–09 is expected to reflect a sharp, corresponding increase in the percentage of non-quantitative manuscripts accepted in the six months after this first-year report was originally prepared, bringing the mix for the full year—so far, closer to that of recent past years.